Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Forstater


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm afraid, at this point, there's really not a consensus here and another relist seems unlikely to get us there. The GNG arguments seem to pretty much collide with the BLP1E arguments, and without consensus among discussants about how to resolve that, not much more we can do here.  Go  Phightins  !  20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Maya Forstater

 * – ( View AfD View log )

BLP of a tax expert whose only real claim to notability in my view is her role in a court case so WP:BLP1E applies. I tried redirecting to the court case (Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) but was reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Not notable. BD2412  T 19:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect per nom - clear WP:BLP1E and not notable independent of the legal case. See also: WP:CFORK. Crossroads -talk- 04:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development (merging in any relevant details). Furius (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I created the page because even if she was not notable before the trial, she is a well known name now, people will search for her name and it is useful for wikipedia to have information about her, separate from that about the case.Melissa Highton (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keepadded to article, her 2002 report and collaborations on international corporate social responsibility cited and used by United Nations, prior to the 2019 case.Kaybeesquared (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep From WP:BLP1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The court case is at the heart of a highly significant controversy in the UK, drawing in many people. Nobody has a larger role in it than Forstater. Moreover, the court case is more than a single event: there was the original case, the controversy over JK Rowling's tweet, and the recent hearing.AndyGordon (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Missvain I agree with @LizardJr8 that this subject passes the WP:GNG . I'd go beyond what I wrote above in saying that the subject is not simply notable for the case Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development, but is a public figure notable for multiple reasons, including her recent leadership of a new campaign to get EHRC to end its membership of the Diversity Champions scheme, and to get a review of Stonewall's influence on public institutions. AndyGordon (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect If Forstater were a retail worker suing Tesco for wrongful dismissal, her role in said litigation would not establish notability. Her role in a Twitter controversy does not establish notability. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Centre for Global Development lists 4 other visiting fellows: 3 notable women (a former president of Malawi, the director of the WTO, the deputy director of the IMF) and one man (a law expert, CEO, former UN commissioner, former UK special envoy, and former director of DFID) who is apparently not notable. While this comparison may not be strong evidence of non-notability, I believe it does help to establish that this is not someone who had simply been overlooked until now because of her gender. Beware of recentism. Will need improvement if kept, but WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Oktalist (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd just like a little more here - "being famous" and "people will look her up" is not policy based.
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and I think that this is more than WP:BLP1E. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has become very well known, and people will certainly search for her name.    Athel cb (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect, possibly merge to Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development. BLP1E. I'm not seeing any coverage not related to the case.  Sandstein   08:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Always keen to learn, but here is my understanding:
 * Her media coverage almost always mentions the case, and indeed much is about the case, but some coverage is about her broader campaigning on sex-based rights. For instance, the Sunday Times article on May 9 concerned a letter she has coordinated calling into the role of Stonewall in public life. Is that article purely about the court case? No, it's part of her broader campaigning, which is inappropriate to cover in an article devoted to the court case.
 * In any case, to quote WP:BLP1E again, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Is this case highly significant?  I think so based on a high degree of controversy.  Forstater's role is large one, and her notability goes beyond it, hence I conclude we should keep the page. AndyGordon (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.